Class Actions Debate Held at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

On October 1, 2025, the Federal Bar Association Chicago Chapter hosted an engaging lunchtime program at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law titled A Debate on the State and Future of Class Actions. The event brought together two of the nation’s leading scholars on complex litigation—Professor Martin H. Redish of Northwestern University and Professor Brian T. Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt University—for a spirited, intellectual discussion about the past, present, and potential future of class action lawsuits in the United States.

Moderated by Hon. Robert M. Dow Jr., District Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and Counselor to Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., the event provided lawyers, law students, and academics a chance to hear contrasting perspectives on the benefits and drawbacks of class actions as a procedural and policy tool. The program was generously sponsored by Simpluris, a national leader in class action administration, and included a complimentary lunch for attendees.

Class actions have long served as one of the most debated mechanisms in American civil litigation. Designed to allow groups of individuals to pursue common claims efficiently, class actions can achieve widespread accountability—but they have also been criticized for creating procedural complexity, excessive settlements, and inconsistent benefits for claimants.

The class actions debate hosted by the FBA Chicago Chapter sought to explore these tensions through a scholarly yet practical lens. Both Redish and Fitzpatrick have devoted decades of research to understanding class action litigation, though they approach the topic from notably different jurisprudential perspectives. Their exchange reflected not only theoretical differences but also a deep respect for the rule of law and the evolving role of federal courts in striking a balance between access to justice and procedural integrity.

Professor Martin H. Redish Discusses Theoretical Limits and Democratic Concerns

Martin H. Redish, the Louis and Harriet Ancel Professor of Law and Public Policy at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, is widely regarded as one of the nation’s foremost authorities on constitutional law, federal jurisdiction, and civil procedure. A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard Law School, Professor Redish has authored more than 100 articles and 19 books, with his recent works including Due Process as American Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2024) and Commercial Speech as Free Expression (Cambridge University Press, 2021).

In the class actions debate, Professor Redish emphasized the constitutional and democratic implications of aggregate litigation. He argued that, while class actions serve important efficiency goals, they can sometimes blur the boundaries of individual rights and judicial authority. Redish cautioned against procedural shortcuts that might undermine personal autonomy or the adversarial process—a cornerstone of American democracy.

He also highlighted the potential dangers of judicial activism and “settlement-driven justice,” where the sheer volume of cases can pressure defendants into settlements, regardless of liability. For Redish, the conversation ultimately centered on protecting due process: ensuring that collective redress mechanisms do not erode the foundational principles of fairness that underpin the legal system.

Professor Brian T. Fitzpatrick Offered a Conservative Defense of Collective Justice

Offering a counterpoint, Professor Brian Fitzpatrick, the Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise and Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School, is known for his groundbreaking work The Conservative Case for Class Actions (University of Chicago Press, 2019). A Harvard Law School graduate and former clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia, Fitzpatrick has built his career examining the intersection of law, economics, and ideology within the context of civil litigation.

During the debate, Professor Fitzpatrick presented class actions as a vital instrument of market accountability, aligning them with conservative principles of deterrence, efficiency, and limited government intervention. He argued that by empowering private citizens to collectively enforce legal norms—particularly in antitrust, consumer protection, and securities cases—class actions reduce the need for heavy-handed regulatory enforcement.

Fitzpatrick drew on empirical data from his studies of settlement outcomes and attorney fees, asserting that well-managed class actions can deliver meaningful compensation to injured parties while maintaining a check on corporate misconduct. His remarks challenged the notion that class actions inherently benefit plaintiffs’ lawyers at the expense of consumers, contending instead that collective litigation is a form of privatized justice that complements, rather than competes with, government oversight.

Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. Guided Discussion from the Bench

Judge Robert M. Dow Jr., who has served on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois since 2007, moderated the class actions debate with a combination of judicial insight and academic rigor. Currently serving as Counselor to Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Judge Dow oversees administrative functions for the Supreme Court and broader federal judiciary.

His background in procedural rulemaking—particularly as former Chair of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules—made him an ideal moderator for this discussion. He previously chaired the committee’s Rule 23 Subcommittee, which governs class action procedure, and helped lead national discussions on multidistrict litigation (MDL) reform.

Judge Dow framed the debate by asking how class actions can best serve both efficiency and equity, inviting the speakers to engage on practical solutions for improving transparency, settlement oversight, and class member participation. His questions reflected an awareness of how doctrinal debates play out in real-world courtrooms, providing attendees with both scholarly context and procedural nuance.

Continuing the Conversation Beyond the Class Actions Debate

The class actions debate at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law exemplified the Federal Bar Association Chicago Chapter’s mission to foster dialogue among judges, scholars, and practitioners. The discussion between Professors Redish and Fitzpatrick illuminated how the mechanics of civil procedure intersect with broader questions about democracy, accountability, and access to justice.

While their perspectives diverged sharply, both agreed that class actions will remain a defining feature of the American legal system—one that continues to evolve in tandem with changes in litigation, regulation, and public perception. Under the steady moderation of Judge Dow, the debate underscored the importance of critical thinking and civic engagement within the legal profession.

As attendees left the session, one message was clear: class actions are not merely a procedural device; they reflect the balance between individual rights and collective responsibility that lies at the heart of the American legal tradition. To join the Federal Bar Association Chicago Chapter and explore more opportunities like this one, please visit our upcoming events and CLE programs.